Graham v. Central Garden & Pet Company

Background

Hillori Graham alleged that Central Garden & Pet Company made false or misleading statements about its Comfort Zone-branded Cat Calming Kit, Multi-Cat Calming Kit, and Calming Pheromone Collar. The labels allegedly described the products as “trusted” and “proven” to reduce multi-cat conflict and destructive behavior, provide anxiety and stress relief, and reduce scratching and urine marking. Graham alleged that the products’ synthetic pheromone ingredient did not effectively treat stress or related behavior in cats. She relied on the labels and alleged that she would not have purchased the products had she known the statements were false.

Graham brought claims under California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False Advertising Law, and Unfair Competition Law; claims for breach of express warranty and implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose; and an unjust-enrichment claim. She sought to represent a proposed nationwide class of people who bought four products, including Spray & Scratch Control, which she did not buy. Central Garden & Pet moved to dismiss all claims.

False-Advertising and Consumer-Protection Claims

The court held that Graham plausibly alleged that the statements were false or misleading and that reasonable consumers could be deceived. Graham cited three studies that, according to the complaint, found no significant calming or behavior-altering effect from synthetic pheromones in cats. At the motion-to-dismiss stage, the court was required to draw reasonable inferences in Graham’s favor and declined to evaluate the studies’ ultimate persuasiveness.

The court also rejected Central Garden & Pet’s argument that Graham alleged only a lack of scientific substantiation. The court understood Graham’s theory to be that affirmative scientific evidence showed the products did not have the advertised effects. The court further held that the statements about relieving stress and reducing conflict, scratching, and urine marking were specific, objective claims rather than non-actionable promotional exaggeration.

The court concluded that Graham plausibly alleged violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and False Advertising Law and unfair and fraudulent conduct under the Unfair Competition Law. She also plausibly alleged an unlawful Unfair Competition Law theory because that claim may rely on violations of other laws.

Remedies

The court held that Graham had not adequately explained why damages would be an insufficient legal remedy for her request for restitution. It therefore granted the motion as to restitution. The court found that Graham plausibly alleged that damages would not remedy the future harm from continued misleading marketing, but held that she lacked standing to seek an injunction because she did not allege that she would buy the products again, wanted to buy them again but could not rely on their labels, or faced another actual and imminent future harm. The request for injunctive relief was dismissed without leave to amend.

The court held that punitive damages were available for the Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim and that Graham’s allegations plausibly supported an inference of malice, an intent to defraud, or an intent to deceive. It therefore denied the motion as to punitive damages generally. The court denied dismissal as to damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

Warranty and Unjust-Enrichment Claims

The court denied the motion as to the express-warranty claim. Graham alleged the exact advertised warranty, relied on it, and plausibly alleged that the products did not provide the promised relief, causing her injury.

The court granted the motion as to the implied-warranty-of-fitness claim. It held that the alleged purpose—relieving unwanted, stress-induced behaviors in cats—was the products’ ordinary purpose, not a different particular purpose required for this type of implied-warranty claim. The court also noted that Graham did not address the claim in her opposition and therefore abandoned it.

The court granted the motion as to the unjust-enrichment claim. The conclusion states that the dismissed claims, other than the request for injunctive relief, were dismissed with leave to amend because the court could not say that amendment would necessarily be futile.

Products Graham Did Not Buy

The court denied dismissal based on Graham’s inclusion of Spray & Scratch Control. It held that she had standing to assert class claims involving that product because the complaint alleged that all four products contained synthetic pheromones and were marketed to calm cats, making the products substantially similar under her theory of misrepresentation.

Disposition

Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted Central Garden & Pet Company’s motion to dismiss in part and denied it in part. The motion was granted as to the False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, and unjust-enrichment claims, the implied-warranty claim, and restitution. The motion was denied as to the express-warranty claim, damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, punitive damages generally, and the challenge based on the product Graham did not purchase. The request for injunctive relief was dismissed without leave to amend. Graham was permitted to file an amended complaint by April 20, 2023.